MY TURN: Adding accountability to the initiative system

We can thank anti-tax initiative votes for the misery we will see in the coming years, as outlined in the proposed state budget. Devastating cuts and the elimination of programs will sacrifice our most vulnerable citizens, compromise our education system, and degrade the living standard of all Washingtonians. Some people may die as they go without housing, food, and medical care, while understaffed agencies are unable to adequately monitor vulnerable children and adults. The consequences of these initiatives illustrate why the founders of our country did not include this system in the United States Constitution, and why the initiative system needs reform to hold initiative sponsors accountable beyond election day.

The founders opposed legislating through mass popular vote, as we do with initiatives, fearing that an "unjust and interested majority" would "sacrifice both the public good and the rights of other citizens." They particularly warned against tax policy being decided by popular vote, saying there is "no legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a predominant party to trample on the rules of justice."

To avoid the weaknesses of such "pure" democracy, the founders created a deliberative legislative system that allows elected representatives to weigh competing interests and occasionally pass unpopular legislation when such legislation is the best solution to a problem. Representative democracy is not perfect, but it is the greatest system of government in human history.

In contrast, the initiative system allows self-interested initiative sponsors to frame complicated issues with a buzzword-oriented superficiality designed to win popular votes. The results can be disastrous.

Once an initiative is passed, the sponsors simply walk away, leaving our elected representatives to address the consequences. Amending our state constitution to abolish the initiative system is the best way to resolve this lack of accountability and avoid the problems predicted by the founders, but it is unlikely to gain traction with the voters who would have to approve it. A good alternative is to modify the system to hold initiative sponsors accountable.

A reformed system would hold initiative sponsors to the same ethics standards as legislators, prohibiting them from sponsoring self-enriching legislation. After an election, initiative sponsors would be required to work with our elected leaders free of charge, for as long as necessary, to develop policies implementing their initiatives in a way that is responsible and causes the least harm. While fulfilling this responsibility, sponsors would be required to consider concerns raised by citizens, the way our elected leaders do.

Refusal by an initiative sponsor to fulfill postelection responsibilities would be grounds to nullify the initiative.

Requiring initiative sponsors to make a long-term commitment to public service beyond an election would force sponsors to think carefully about the consequences of the initiatives they propose, and may restrain them from moving forward with proposals that will ultimately harm society. Someone who is truly committed to the public interest should have no problem with extended service to implement an initiative that he feels benefits everyone. The system will still not be ideal, but it will improve upon the superficial, unaccountable initiative system we now have.